Napoli v. Philbrick
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtGeaham, J.
Since the parties agreed that the only matter in controversy was the true divisional line between the two contiguous parcels of land, this action, in effect, became a processioning proceeding. Harrill v. Taylor, 247 N.C. 748, 102 S.E. 2d 223; Welborn v. Lumber Co., 238 N.C. 238, 77 S.E. 2d 612; Goodwin v. Greene, 237 N.C. 244, 74 S.E. 2d 630; Clegg v. Canaday, 217 N.C. 433, 8 S.E. 2d 246. It was therefore the duty of the judge to determine what constitutes the divisional line, and also as the trier of the facts, to say where it is. Coley v. Telephone Co., 267 N.C. 701, 149 S.E. 2d 14; Jenkins…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Cornelison v. . HammondSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
- Jenkins v. TranthamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Plemmons v. CutshallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- McCanless v. . BallardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- Goodwin v. GreeneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Thomas v. PooleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- Blair v. FairchildsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- Tripp v. North Carolina Phosphate Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970